In ancient wars, why did they have to attack cities, instead of interspersing them with roundabouts?

In a large number of film and television themes of costume dramas, we often see the ancients fighting, mainly to siege cities. For example, if an army rebels and overthrows the rule of the authorities, and it is necessary to attack city by city, and finally take the capital directly, can't it be like in modern warfare to bypass the city and go straight behind the enemy?

In fact, the role of the ancient city is greater than the role of the modern city, it is first of all a regional material distribution center, the ancient art of war has clouds: the three armies have not moved, the grain and grass first, the status of materials in the ancient war is the top priority, and the transportation is inconvenient, the materials are difficult to keep up with the pace of the army, so it is necessary to rely on the war to make up for the inconvenience of transportation. In addition, the ancients did not have advanced ** in war, and everyone's equipment will not be too bad, so let's see who has more people who has an advantage, and you can also make up for the loss of soldiers when you build a city!

Secondly, the ancient city also had a radiation effect on the surrounding area. Because the ancient cities are generally built on the main roads or dangerous terrain of the soldiers, and the captured city can also be used as a fortification for their own side, when continuing to fight, they can ensure that they have a stable rear, in order to prevent being attacked by the front and rear, to ensure the stability of the army, and at the same time to escort their own material transportation channels!

Finally, before the ancients wanted to overthrow the rule of the authorities, most of them first found out the dragon veins of the rulers through feng shui magicians, and tried their best to destroy them, believing that through this move, they could directly destroy the luck of a country and increase the possibility of their own success. And although each city is not where the dragon vein is, it can also affect the luck of a country, the fewer the city, the less the national fortune, so the symbolic significance of the city is great!

In ancient times, the Chinese population was small, and most of the material population was concentrated in the cities, and it was useless for the countryside to surround the city. After interspersing, there is no danger to defend, the beginning and the end are difficult to care, and there is no way to get supplies, although it is not defeated, it is not far away.

<> "Often in ancient wars, the most tragic is the siege war. Because in the era of cold weapons, no matter what kind of siege equipment needs to be used by people, the defenders naturally have to try their best to defend. Therefore, the general siege war will basically turn into a war of attrition between the two sides, which is extremely tragic.

So why did the army choose to siege the city rather than bypass it in ancient warfare? In fact, this point has also appeared in history. For example, Huang Taiji said that Huang Taiji directly bypassed the Guanning defense line and turned to attack North China.

But in the vast majority of wars, it's not that you don't want to go around, but you can't go around.

First of all, an army needs a steady stream of logistical supplies to go on an expedition. Because the army itself can carry the best grain and grass is very limited, which requires a large number of people to come to transport. Once you advance around a city, the rest of the logistics will be harassed or even cut off.

If it is more serious, it is very likely that the retreat of this army will be cut off, and then a turtle will be caught in an urn.

In other words, from the perspective of follow-up troops and attacks, the city must be occupied. After the city is broken, you can not only stay here to rest, but also use it as a base to advance again. It is also possible to recruit troops directly in place to expand the team, and the benefits are far more than those soldiers consumed in the siege.

Secondly, there is a very important problem that most of the cities cannot be bypassed. Generally, when building a city in ancient times, it was basically a place that was easy to defend and difficult to attack, either surrounded by large rivers or natural hazards, or a plain. An article on the plain is good to say, you can go around the rent and think about it, but it will be used as a live target.

If you choose to take a detour, the food and grass that needs to be consumed, as well as the physical exertion of the soldiers, are huge. In addition, there are often terrain rents similar to a line of sky around the city, and this kind of terrain march is not as good as directly attacking the city.

If it's a river or something, then it's even more dangerous, and if you choose to bypass the city and cross the river, then you will definitely be cut off directly. It is possible to be defeated at least or annihilated by the whole army.

In addition, ancient cities were actually very strategic, and in many wars, the primary target was not actually the opponent's capital or army. Most of the primary goals are to conquer these cities, as they are very important for both supply and fortification. It is precisely for these reasons that there have been tragic siege battles again and again in history.

In ancient times, fighting a war and walking around the city did not work at all, and it was even self-defeating for the army.

Ancient city construction was not as open as it is today, with tall and thick walls on the periphery of each city, as well as wide and deep moats. Each gate of the city is equipped with an urn city, with countless female walls and dark holes on the city wall, in a condescending situation, only a small number of soldiers can resist several times their own enemy army, and if you want to break through a city, you often have to pay huge losses of personnel.

As for the argument of bypassing the city, although the siege is avoided, the result will only outweigh the losses. The ancients were very deliberate in the selection of the location of the city, and one of the important attributes was the strategic location defense. And many cities are built on key passes, and there is no way around them.

Cities are an important supply base for the army, and ancient cities are not all built on the basis of danger, so for those cities located on the plains and with excellent transportation, can they be bypassed? The answer is no either. Cities built on the plains are basically wealthy areas with developed economies and large populations.

The city's grain depots were so full that they could provide enough food and grass for the army.

In addition, there is an important treasury in the city, which stores the taxes and food paid by the people, which is an important military salary, which can effectively supplement the soldiers and buy the necessary baggage.

Bypassing the city is easy to be attacked by the enemy, ancient warfare means attacking the city, the city as a huge fortress, retreating can be defended, advanced can be attacked, is a solid base for the army. In ancient times, there were also rogue-style battles that bypassed the city, but they inevitably left a huge hidden danger of attack, and the ending was often very tragic.

In ancient wars, many cities were built in danger and guarded by major transportation routes, so there was no other road for the army to bypass. Moreover, the city is also an important tool for supplementing grain and grass, and is the basis for carrying out ruling and management, and bypassing the city will lose the basic meaning of warfare. Therefore, it is better to take the city at a great cost than to choose to bypass it.

One is that the city is on the main traffic artery, and there are many inconveniences to walk around. The second is that if you bypass it, you will face the situation of being attacked by the enemy on your back. The enemy will flank the front and back, which is even more disadvantageous to you.

Because the city is the political and cultural center, and most of the wealth is concentrated in the city. Therefore, the ancient attack mainly chose to siege the city, and it was impossible to supply it if it went around. Logistics will be cut off.

In ancient warfare, the city wall was the last barrier of a city. The only way to capture the city is to break through the walls. Walking around the city does not lead to victory. This was the most basic tactic in ancient warfare.

Better access to resources. Ancient towns concentrated resources such as major economic grains, and transportation was not convenient in ancient times, so if you choose to abandon the city, you may have no food to eat.

Ancient cities had high walls, and the city was stored with enough grain and grass, and the capture of the city could be used as a base for the next advance, and at the same time, it could also be replenished with materials

In ancient times, due to the slow movement speed of the army, it was easy to be attacked by the rear city troops and cut off the supply line, so the only option was to attack the city.

Because of the sparse population in ancient times, bypassing the city, not only did there be nowhere to replenish supplies, but also the enemy could be disrupted behind the back.

Because it is more dangerous to walk around, this is the case.

In the ancient war, choose to work instead of going around, the main reason is that if this place is not built, there is an army in it, and after you leave, he can take the place you attacked again.

The city is a local political, administrative, and economic center, representing the existence of a political power, therefore, the city has a high strategic value, and is often a place where soldiers must fight, so the war often revolves around the city, and the capture of the city is used as a sign to evaluate the victory or defeat of a war.

<> "Ancient wars encountered cities that could not be attacked for a long time, why didn't you choose to detour?" See what the experts have to say!

Since ancient times, the development of any country or region has been inseparable from one topic, and that is war. War is not only an intensification of contradictions between nations and states, but also a situation that will inevitably arise when society develops to a certain stage. Since the Xia, Shang and Western Zhou dynasties, every change of dynasty has been the result of war.

But in war, often the people above do not think about how many battles, but how many cities they have captured!

In wars, it is often the occupancy of the opponent's city that achieves a phased victory, while the losing side also surrenders. Of course, it is not excluded that the city can be captured without spending a single soldier with extraordinary strategy, but this situation is still very rare, and it is generally necessary to solve it by war. In any war, there must be an attacking side and a defending side, but basic common sense tells us that the defending side often has the upper hand.

In ancient times, science and technology were underdeveloped, and the siege methods were lacking, so they often fell into the dilemma of not being able to attack for a long time, and spent a lot of troops and financial resources.

In the same way, if you only admit the reason of death and do simple and good deeds, then you will fall into the horns of the bull, and even mess up one thing. So in ancient wars, there were often cities that could not be captured for a long time, but why didn't these generals choose to detour? It is also possible to occupy other areas first, thus creating strategic oppression.

Then I'll tell you to see what the experts have to say!

Some experts scoff at this argument and argue that it simply doesn't work. In many film and television dramas, we have seen the situation of ancient cities, almost important areas or cities will have a main city gate, unlike other city gates, the main city gate is often designed to be relatively large, and it is heavily guarded. Let's not underestimate the wisdom of the ancients, generally the city gates will be designed according to the terrain, are easy to defend and difficult to attack, and are strategic locations in war.

In the Three Kingdoms, we can often see that some princes occupy important cities, and they are often helpless to attack one side. It is precisely because of the strategic location of some cities that the terrain is very complex, and it takes a lot of time and experience to get around. And what is the most important thing in war, that is time.

If you choose to make a detour, the other side will have time to support and mobilize troops, and the situation will change in an instant, which is a taboo for soldiers.

As a result, many experts disagree with this approach. Unless you attack the enemy's capital, or if the city is built on a plain and there is no chance to call for help, it is a good idea to bypass the city in this situation. In a general war, then a city can only be captured in one go, or it can only be a war of attrition.

The Art of War is written by the ancients, from which we can see the military wisdom of the ancients, and warfare is common in many cases, including modern warfare.

Of course, peace is the main theme, and happiness and well-being away from war are the most important things!

<><In ancient wars, you can't take a city, so why not take a detour? These 3 reasons tell you that the answer is only guessing

China's history is very long, and there have been countless wars in Chinese history. I believe that in the current TV series, everyone should have seen a lot of war scenes. So I don't know if you have noticed, the ancients fought wars one by one.

Even if one city cannot be attacked, it is rare to bypass this one city and attack the next.

So why did the ancients not choose to bypass the city when they were fighting, but had to fight hard to bring the city down? Some people may say that the ancients were stupid and brainless. In fact, this is not the case, which contains a lot of wisdom of the ancients.

1. In ancient times, the traffic conditions were very poor, and the city was generally the throat of the main road. There will be few other roads between the two cities. Even if there are other paths, they are not suitable for large armies.

Second, as the so-called three armies have not moved, grain and grass go first. In ancient times, the supply of logistics for fighting a war was very important, and if you chose to bypass the city, then the logistics supply line of the army would be stretched, increasing the burden of transporting grain and grass. Bypassing the city also makes logistical supply lines vulnerable to threat from the other side.

Once the supply of the army is cut off, the collapse of the army will occur, no matter how high the combat effectiveness of the army is.

3. In ancient times, cities were generally densely populated places, and they were also places where grain, grass and materials were hoarded. If you want to get food and grass supplies, you can get food supplies as long as you break through the city, and the morale of the army is also very good for the morale of the army.

Therefore, considering these reasons, it is the best choice to attack the city. Although there are examples of successful detours and surprise attacks on cities, relatively speaking, such examples are really too few.